How would history might have been different if Cortes had not defeated Montezuma?

Answer 1

As this question is a "What-if?" there is no perfect or unassailable answer. As a result, you may have different views below (as well as the Expert Answer above).

Answer 1

It could be more likely to be conquered by other kingdoms like the French and English and then Spain would've never spoken Spanish

Answer 2

At least two thirds of Spain would then have remained a Muslim country. It would then probably not have forcefully repelled the Ottoman forces from the western Mediterranean but it might well have joined up with them, which would have enormously increased Muslim power and influence in southern Europe.

Spain's history was further heavily influenced by it colonization of great parts of the Americas, in which - apart from finding treasure there - was to a large extent driven by Catholic conversion zeal. Spain might not have aimed for this colonial empire under Muslim leadership, although you cannot be sure about that.

Another difference might have been (although this too is speculation) that after initially joining up, a fierce power struggle might and one ore several wars have ensued between the two big Muslim powers (Spain and the Ottoman Empire) for dominance of southern Europe.

It is doubtful if the other European powers would have decided to fight Spain because of its Muslim dominance. Most of these countries over the centuries tried to to have a good (if possible, excellent) and peaceful relationship with the Ottoman Empire and they would probably have wanted good relationship with a Muslim Spain as well.

Answer 3

As a purely a perfunctory answer, if the Spaniards had not defeated the Moors, the Moors would still continue to rule Spain.

Answer 2

Eventually, a Spanish conquistador or someone else from another European power would have wiped out the Aztecs.

The Age of Exploration (centuries 15-17 AD) was a race among European powers to acquire riches and raw materials to finance their constant wars in Europe. This meant several mercenaries, military-men and seamen explored the world to acquire precious metals and raw materials, or to open new markets to enrich the treasures of their home countries. At the time, the most important maritime powers included Spain, England, France, the Netherlands, Portugal and to a lesser extent, Venetia and Genoa (at the time Italy was not consolidated as a single country).

If Cortes had not defeated Montezuma, most probably Francisco Pizarro (Cortes' cousin) or some other Spanish conquistador would have. If not, probably Portuguese explorers would have followed on Cortes' steps. On the other hand, the Aztec civilization would have had more time to prepare for the onslaught of European forces which probably would have meant another 5-15 years of struggle to conquer Mexico. The fall of the Aztec civilization was however, inevitable, as Aztecs weren't really prepared to fight forces with better weaponry such as horses, iron armor and muskets, and the smallpox, measles and typhus diseases brought by Europeans and for which they didn't have immunity.

In fact, the ultimate reason for the destruction of the Aztec empire was twofold: first, the alliance between Cortes and the Tlaxcalans, who were bitter enemies of the Aztecs and supplied more than 10,000 troops to conquer and destroy Tenochtitlan; the second and most important was the smallpox plague released upon the Aztecs by Cortes and his fellow countrymen; such plague reduced the population of Mexico from more than 20 million in 1518 down to less than 2 million in 1581.

Answer 3

Before answering, the term "Moor" is an antiquated and improper term for North Africans that are properly called Berbers or Amazigh (in their own languages). It would be similar to calling Blacks as "Coloreds". Additionally, the Reconquista was fought from the early 800s CE to the late 1400s CE, making it a nearly 600 year struggle. The Muslim opponents to the Catholic States changed many times. The Umayyads, who ruled from 711-1038 were actually Syrian Arabs. The Almoravids and the Almohads, who were both Amazigh, who ruled from 1090-1147 and 1147-1248. During the remaining period of conflict, Islamic Spain was divided into small city-states called Taifas. Most were ruled by Amazigh, but some were ruled by Arabs, some were ruled by Muladis (Iberians who converted to Islam and their descendants), and some were ruled by Saqaliba (Slavs who had been brought to Islamic Spain as slaves, but eventually gained their freedom).

If the question refers to the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, which spelled the end of the Almohad control of Iberia, where previously Iberia was 2/3 Christian and 1/3 Muslim (roughly), The bickering Spanish Kingdoms of Castille, Leon, Navarra, and Aragon would likely not have survived in the long term. Either Portugal, France, or Islamic Spain would have eventually destroyed them or annexed them (through marriage of their royalty or similar). Many of the things described in the Nasrid "what-if" should also be considered.

If the question refers to the last Islamic Taifa Kingdom in Iberia: the Nasrid Kingdom of Granada, which was actually an Arab Kingdom (not Amazigh) that survived nearly two centuries longer than all of the other Taifas by nearly two centuries. If the Nasrid Kingdom had not fallen, it is likely that Spain would never have united since the military union between Isabella of Castille and Ferdinand of Aragon's union was predicated on the unification of Iberia. A non-united Spain could not afford to finance Columbus' voyage to the New World nor afford to begin the Spanish Inquisition. This would have allowed Portugal to become the dominant power in Latin America and would have made North America a contest between the British, French, and Dutch. This would have directly prevented both Castille and Aragon from being anything more than weak European states, similar to Savoy or the German states that would be completely at the will of Alliances with other European States or powers. Additionally, since the Habsburgs would never become heirs to the vast Spanish Empire (only to Castille), France likely would have defended Catholicism in the Thirty Years War as opposed to supporting the Protestants (since there would be no fear of Habsburgs overwhelming France). This could well have spelled doom for the Protestants. Additionally, since France would be in a more pro-Catholic alignment with little to fear from the Habsburgs, it is unlikely that France would have been a historical ally of the Ottoman Empire, which would have lessened the Ottomans' will and ability to conquer southeast Europe and perhaps prevent Hungary from ever falling to the Turks.